It’s Proof, Proof I tell you! Australia is getting hotter and the future is… back in 1922

Panic! “The proof Australia is getting hotter”

The headlines are as inane as ever — stating the obvious, proving only that the modern media is mostly bread and circuses. Pretty much everyone agrees the world is slowly trending warmer, but it’s rolled out in the media as if someone somewhere is denying it, and as if mere proof of warming is “proof” it will keep warming. Watch the causal chain explode into climate astrology:

“THERE is no point in denying it: Australia is getting hotter, and it’s not going to stop. And we have the figures to prove it. “

If this proves anything about the future climate its that journalists are getting more gullible. They have figures too?!

Caroline Zielinski, of The Telegraph, dutifully repeats the PR line, that “2014 was the hottest ever on Earth”. She must have missed the press release that also said that NASA were only 38% sure of that. That makes them 62% sure they were wrong – just another global warming factoid, eh?

Zielinski tells us Western Australia had “several days of near-50-degree heat this summer.” Oh Yessity, Yes indeed. At Marble Bar a full century of global warming means it was almost as hot in 2015 as it was in 1905 and 1922. Back to the future we go.

To investigate the story, Zeilinski confirmed the big-government WMO press release by phoning the big-government BOM, as if either of these groups would contradict each other. Dr Karl Braganza at the BOM backed up the WMO, apparently not pointing out the awkward fact of the 62% wrong NASA press release, and not mentioning the data on Boulia either. Instead he went out on a limb with a brave theory that there was no climate change in Australia until 1950.

“Australia has warmed up most notably since the mid-20s century,” says Dr Karl Braganza, manager of climate monitoring at the Bureau of Meteorology.

“Prior to that, temperatures were reasonably flat — we didn’t have much of a trend.

“There was no clear trend prior to World War II — it’s from 1950 onwards that we’ve had a significant warming trend across Australia.”

There is a decided lack of convincing good temperature proxies for Australia, but proxies from pretty much everywhere else in the world show that the warming trend started two to three hundred years ago, long before man-made CO2 rose. That trend hasn’t changed much. In the last 16 years, the more CO2 we pumped out, the less difference it made.

Yes, it’s warming (a bit). The world has been warming for 300 years. So?

Everywhere we look there are signs the warming started around 1700 – 1800AD. In the Northern Hemisphere, 120 proxies show things started warming 200-300 years ago. Some 6,000 boreholes drilled on all continents (including Australia), show the same thing. Sea levels have been also rising for around 200 years. The water flowing past Indonesia started warming around 300 years ago. (The Makassar and Lombok Straits are the main throughflow from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean.)

But maybe Australia didn’t warm or cool? The seas just rose and fell, the oceans changed, and the other continents got warmer and cooler.

Boreholes can only show the general trends, but the trends are pretty clear. What caused the medieval warm period? The models don’t know. What caused that cool dip around 1700AD? The models don’t know. What caused the recent warming — the models don’t know. They got the last 16 years wrong, and everything else. They’re broken.

And remember, this ladies and gentlemen is the evil Murdoch press. The media outlet with secret instructions from Rupert to shamelessly promote deniers. They are pilloried for allowing skeptics a voice, yet prove they can do mindless propaganda with the best of them when they choose to.

Hint to Caroline Zielinski — I’m happy to help you make news.com stories more accurate. The CSIRO State of the Climate Report left out a lot of things. All you have to do is ask.

Done! I have been remiss since JoNova is the first site I hit most days and even though I am at least 12 hours behind the curve on relative time scales it is fun ,invigorating and informative.
I hope Jo and David are supported by each and every single one of us.
Last time I payed up it was because a guy was offering to match receipts to a certain amount , which makes me feel embarrassed a tad since that was probably a long time ago.
Cfact send me an email every day of the week asking for money which does not engender a lot of faith in me.
I would love to support each and everyone who is involved in the fight against the Climate Jihadis , but obviously that would not be possible unless you are a very wealthy man,at any rate ,keep up the good work and as Bob Geldof would say , give us your $%^&en money!

Every year seems to be the hottest one on record. It’s a media consensus factoid unlike, say, Phil Jones volunteering to a parliamentary committee that there’s been no statistically significant warming for nearly two decades.

I was very careful not to prejudice any trial which would nail Patchy, but it looks like the effort was be unnecessary.

“Getting back to the realms of reality, there’s absolutely nothing funny about sexual harassment for its victims. It’s a deeply distressing experience and should be recognised and condemned for what it is – predatory sexual behaviour which should be prosecuted with the same rigour as any other crime against the person.”

Unfortunately in the USA the prosecutor’s office can decline to bring the matter to trial.

On February 14, 2013, The Heartland Institute released a 57-page slide presentation produced by its legal counsel, Jones Day, titled “Criminal Referral of Dr. Peter H. Gleick Talking Points.” The report, presented to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, asked the government to prosecute Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick, a prominent climate scientist and environmental activist.

Several presentations based on information contained in this document were made to the staff of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, including David Glockner, at the time head of the criminal division, and Gary Shapiro, now acting U.S. Attorney. So far, the government has not prosecuted Peter Gleick….http://fakegate.org/

In the fresh report, submitted to Prime Minister’s Office and National Security Adviser, the central security agency has warned that foreign donations to the Greenpeace be put on “prior category” list so that permission is taken before any money flows in for funding their activities….

Besides the damage has been done. He has been tried in the court of public opinion and any female who has worked outside the home who is not dead ugly, has most likely run into similar situations and was helpless to do anything but switch jobs.

The real killer however was Patchy’s Farewell Letter.

For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.

Go look up dharma.“Dharma in both Hinduism and Buddhism refers to the principle or law that orders the universe…”

So what if Australia was getting warmer ? Tough on the locals but hardly a big hill of beans on the global scale. I,m sure the surfers are not going to be alarmed if it was a degree warmer or even colder. It is an irrelevance.
They, the clapped out ignorant journalists make it up as they go along and then point to their “proofs” as if they mean anything at all, they don,t ,they just demonstrate how stupid they are.
“One source gives the surface of the Earth as 510,072,000 km2 , and the surface of Australia as 7,617,930 km2
So Australia covers about 1.5% of the surface of the Earth.”
So 98.5 % of the World does not give a tinkers cuss about the local weather in OZ and someone needs to tell people to worry about getting the engineering right to mitigate weather events and to stop thinking about tampering with the atmosphere.

Perth summer is non existent. No usual heat. Not one cyclone off WA Coast. No fires despite lots of vegetation enhanced by co2. That tells me the opposite to the hottest on record. But hey this is weather not climate? And yet marble bar provides the proof. I am so relieved as I need that warmth before winter sets in.

There would appear to be just such a competition although the focus now has shifted to who can besmirch the reputation of one side or the other the most. The Guardian yesterday ,Nutticcelli as ever plagiarizing the works of others 2 days after the event,banging on about Willie Soon and it looks a lot like libel to me , whilst some scallywags , horrible people,as epitomised by me, are rejoicing in the downfall of the head of the IPCC.
The hottest year is not going to go away i,m afraid and it will stick in the minds of the sheeple who refuse to read anything outside of their Janet and John guides to fifty shades of imbecility.

That’s a very interesting link….thank you for that. The bread and circuses bit has struck me for a long time. I’ve wondered at the sheer amount of absolute rubbish being purveyed by the various media, and the endless sport, sport, sport too; especially soccer, for which I’ve had a deep loathing all my life, exacerbated by a soccer mad boss who forced us to go and watch ‘his’ team. I notice that their ABC is now pushing it like mad, along with SBS. We sit and shout at the ABC news and then turn off the box before the mind-polluting 7:30 junk.

You’re welcome. I’d never heard that phrase before so I looked it up and that article came up in the top three. Great article so figuered I’d share.

By the way, they’ve added another ‘ring’ to the modern circus to increase the distraction from reality. The new ploy is the total immersion of the media into the lives of other people. And I don’t mean just movie stars and muisicians either. They’re just part of it. I mean reality shows. Reality shows everywhere.

So now, rather than people spending time living their own lives, they live other peoples lives through the images on the screen and written press. Can you imagine what would happen if all of these distractions were removed and ppl actually began to realise how fv<xed their lives have become because of big brother?

I don’t like the derogatory way that ‘bread and circuses’ is used. You need to eat, boredom is torture and you can’t work 24/7 unless you have a job that you love (not many do). No excuse for not making time to keep up with what is going on but best not to do it at all if you’re being selective with your news sources (This is why the ABC is so criminal). Then you have family and friends to devote some time to but if you can weave them into a beer at the pub watching soccer, all the better.

‘bread and circuses’ is a derogatory term because it is a method for keeping the public from finding out what is actually going on and rioting or revolting.

Bread = Welfare/food stamps in the USA.

Circuses = Sports/TV/computer games and other distractions. NGOs soak up the malcontents and put them to use directing society in the direction the leaders actually want.

George Bernard Shaw said:

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

George Bernard Shaw, Everybody’s Political What’s What? (1944) ch. 30

…

However the catch is what else Shaw, a Fabian Society co-founder said.

“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

“Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

Unfortunately we are seeing the laws needed to completely control the world population being put in place. In the USA and the UK Smart Meters and Smart Appliances will allow outside control of your home electric.Energy: “big brother” technology by Richard North.

William M. Briggs has an article by Blonde about the “dietary guidelines” up for comment in the USA.

As she says:

…The “dietary guidelines” report runs well over 500 pages and there [are] trap doors and cracks on every page that will let the government into every facet of your life. Unhand those cheezy bits. Step away from the television. (The lack of television watchers is causing problems for broadcasters and advertisers—-wait for the govt mandate that a certain threshold of hours must be met per day.)

The Chairperson made it very clear the guidelines are aboutClimate Change, Agenda 21 aka Sustainability.

“After 30 years of waiting, the fact that this committee is addressing sustainability issues brings me a lot of pleasure,” she began. Clancy went on to advocate that Americans should become vegetarians in order to achieve sustainability in the face of “climate change.”…

“What pattern of eating best contributes to food security and the sustainability of land air and water?” Clancy asked. “The simple answer is a plant-based diet.”…

“In terms of keeping a broader idea of food security in your minds it would be perilous, I would think, for this committee or anybody else to not be taking climate change into account in any of the deliberations about sustainability,” she said.

Clancy said beef production is the “greatest concern.”

Meat production is harmful to the environment because of manure runoff and “methane production by cattle,” she said, which has “a much stronger effect on climate change than carbon dioxide does per unit of methane.”…..
weaselzippers(DOT)us/179187-meet-the-radicals-creating-the-new-federal-dietary-guidelines/

QUICK QUICK grab a steak before they are banned….
I wish I was kidding.

To mindlessly parrot that: “2014 was the hottest ever on Earth” illustrates just how hopelessly scientifically illiterate the press are. No wonder dissembling post-normal “scientists” who deal in half-truths, 38% truths, lies by omission and outright falsehoods can run rings around them.

Jo, a correction to the penultimate paragraph: “They are pilloried for allowed skeptics a voice”
should be “They are pilloried for allowing skeptics a voice”.

“Hint to Caroline Zielinski — I’m happy to help you make news.com stories more accurate. . . . All you have to do is ask.”

I don’t think it works that way. The story would be corrupted and their judgment proven worthless. These folks consider themselves “professionals” and allowing anyone else to review (even the facts used) what they write is not allowed.

“85% of man made CO2 was after 1945?” Is there a source for this? Is this simply the amount of CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels has been after 1945? If so, does it presume naively that the CO2 emitted just hangs around, in utter contradiction of everything we know about equilibrium? Fish have to breathe too. Yes and they eat, fart and die. Every part of our physiology shows we carbon lifeforms came from the ancient oceans too. CO2 and O2 exchange rapidly with the oceans.

So it is one thing to say that 85% of all fossil fuel ever burned was after 1945 and quite another to say it is all still in the air. The IPCC say the half life for CO2 in the air is 80 years. This figure underpins all their subsequent conclusions and is used to rate all ‘green house gases’.

However as I have written many times, the C14 decay graph proves conclusively that the half life of CO2 in the air is 14 years. Nearly all the 1965 bomb C14 is gone in 50 years. So by the IPCC’s own definition, a 14 year half life means CO2 is 1/32nd as potent as a ‘green house gas’ as they claim, even if the Green House gas theory was right.

Yes, you can radio carbon date the air itself and tell the difference between CO2 from the oceans in constant exchange like O2 and CO2 from car exhausts. It is really easy. Like a reverse tracer, one has no C14 at all as it is ancient Carbon. If the 50% increase was all man made, C14 levels should be 2/3 of those in 1945.

The (burning) question then is, if most of the increase of atmospheric CO2 is not from fossil fuels, why is it increasing? Is it because the oceans are warming slightly, like warming lemonade? Is it the same reason the seas are rising slightly? Is it utterly disconnected from man made CO2. Of course.

Then ‘man made’ CO2 is also a misleading term. It is natural plant matter and we made nothing. Man released perhaps.

A very slight ocean surface warming is simply and entirely responsible for everything we see. Why there is a slight warming is a different question, but we can be certain it is no one’s fault and a tax will not fix it. It is a very good thing and another ice age would be a very bad thing.

We can laugh at primitive man’s fear of eclipses and be shocked at human sacrifice when the weather was difficult and be amazed that primitive man lived in fear of his gods and their thunderbolts. We Modern men have instruments and statistics and computers which show things are changing very, very slightly and we can be whipped in to Global Panic and build hundreds of thousands of useless giant windmills. Primitive man would be amused.

TdeF, I agree. Skeptics need to stop saying things that let the warmists off the hook. It has mostly always been but certainly now is a propaganda game. We don’t do ourselves justice by falling for and using their rhetoric. It is not “mand-made” CO2.

I am not sure I understand you. If the nuclear bombs put C14 into the atmosphere and burning fossil fuels doesn’t add C14, then the 2 effects would cancel each other. Has the C14 level changed much over time?

If the C14 level has been stable for, say, the last 10-15 years that would go a long way to proving your claim. Without a top-up from nuclear testing the C14 level should be declining at an increasing rate. If the level is stable then emissions are having no effect.

I really think that the question of where the rising CO2 is coming from is nowhere as important as whether it is having any effect. Since there seems to have been warming since ~1700 (something obvious from written observations in Europe) apart from the Dalton minimum, and since the rate of warming 1850-1880, and 1920-1940 was the same as from 1975-1998 it is hard to see any discernible effect caused by CO2. Nor do the temperatures from previous interglacials indicate any correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.

I once wrote all this down on a blog with the C14 graphs shown as the “bombtest curve”. Others have done so since, so I have not maintained it.

The C14 levels are quickly returning to the 20,000 year level since the sudden doubling in the 1960s with a single perfect exponential with a half life of 14 years. The C14 levels are not returning to 2/3 of the pre 1963 levels, which is what must happen if the 50% increase is man made.

What I find amazing is that there is no science argument at all for mankind unilaterally and dramatically increasing CO2 levels. It is simply not possible. The exchange with the oceans is just too fast. So the real science has been ignored or buried by the IPCC. Without their made up 100 year half life, they have no business spruiking man made Global Warming and they know it.

Graeme 3. ” the question of where the rising CO2 is coming from is nowhere as important as whether it is having any effect.”

If the CO2 is not coming from humans, why are we discussing it? What can we do about it? Why are we building windmills and spending $1Bn a day?

Where the CO2 is coming from is the $2Trillion dollar question. There is a meeting in Paris this year to hand over our sovereign rights to a bunch of unelected communist UN bureaucrats because they say it is coming from us.

Thank you.
My question partly arose from the variation in C14 levels with solar activity which has to be taken into account when doing C14 dating. ( more active sun less C14).
Since the sun has been more active in the 100 years to 2000 and fossil fuel C14 is nearly zero, you have a powerful argument that CO2 is rapidly recycled and that some other influence is important.
Do you have a link to the graphs?

By “half life” of CO2 in the air, I means the time it takes half the atmospheric CO2 to join the 98% of all CO2 which is dissolved in the world’s oceans.

The simple physical chemistry rule of equilibrium means cannot unilaterally raise CO2 on one side of the sea/air concentration except for a time. The amount of CO2 in the air is ultimately determined by the total amount of CO2 and Henry’s law, largely temperature. Even the IPCC agree that “Man made” CO2 will effectively vanish in the huge ocean reservoir.

For the IPCC it is critical that the half life is 80-100 years, or there is no Man Made Global Warming because there is no man made CO2 increase. In the 1950s, Professor Suess, one of the four fathers (Joke) of the University of San Diego and early proponent of Radio Carbon dating estimated the total contribution of man made CO2 to the air was only 2%. He was right and nothing has changed. So if the world is warming or cooling, it is not something we are doing.

I have never read how the IPCC concluded the CO2 half life of 80-100 years in the atmosphere. For example, the EPA quote “The
half-life of CO2 emissions is roughly 100 years (IPCC, 2001)”. Further IPCC FAQ 10.3 “While more than half of the CO2 emitted is currently removed from the atmosphere within a century”. This is all very wrong according to Dr Suess sixty years ago. C14 dating proves it.

Extract from ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (Alex S. Gaddes, 1990)
How does the cooling effect of atmospheric dust compare with the warming effect of excess carbon dioxide discharged into the atmosphere by man?

J. Gribbin (Ref. No. 12) quotes R. Bryson as mentioning “sharp changes” within 17 years, in records revealed by the study of pollens. According to Bryson the results of these studies also show, “…..that it is possible to go from an inter-glacial situation, like the present, to full glacial conditions in less than 100 years….”
If, as Bryson records, it has happened in the past that conditions have gone from an inter-glacial stage like the present, to full glacial conditions in less than 100 years, it becomes obvious that if (excluding man’s activities other than the production of carbon dioxide) any tendency towards global cooling is in evidence, such as a short-fall in solar output and/or expanding deserts,(including their attendant wind-blown dust) or the dust from explosive volcanoes; and man’s negative activities are added to the equation, it becomes very likely that there will be a continuation of the cooling which began in the 1940’s, in spite of the added factor of excess carbon dioxide.

D.G.
It is a theory only. Cooling (by solar changes?) causes drier conditions which means more dust. This amplifies the change in solar input and explains the objection that the sun’s output doesn’t vary enough to affect the climate.

I would make 2 comments, firstly that I would believe Bryson far more than the supposed experts of the IPCC, and the second is that astronomers, e.g. Willie Soon, believe that the Sun varies far more than a guess based on 30 years measurements.

Seas [and oceans!] have been rising since the end of the last ice age, when all that ice in north America and Europe started melting. Think about huge glaciers covering Detroit, and Greenland, for example. As all this ice on land melted and flowed into the oceans, sea levels went up by 125 METERS between 20,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago. Since that time sea levels have continued to rise at a much slower and variable rate of about 20 cm per hundred years. 20cm [7 inches] in 100 years is too small an amount for anyone to have noticed in a couple of lifetimes, but the evidence is all in the rocks, or those derived from ancient coral beds.

In answer to your question, it looks like millimetres to me and that ties in with what the other Ian is saying.

I’ve been looking at Adelaide’s coastline for nearly 50 years and the water level hasn’t done anything but stay the same, yet in that time atmospheric CO2 has risen about 80ppm, or 25%. Don’t the Greens ponder the same thing and start to worry?

Sometimes someone says “ah, but they are going to” when all the positive feedbacks kick in, because 97% of scientists say so. It reminds me of the cartoon of the skeleton of the elderly lady still waiting for “Mr Right”. It ain’t gunna happen!

Well it must be caused something and We’ve been told it’s nothing to do with Islam even though the Islamic mullahs doing the headchoppery stuff insist that is , so it must be caused by global warming even though the unadjusted actual temperature ( for the last 18 yrs ) shows that isn’t .

This the same sort of logic that bans the manufacture of traditional barometers because mercury is “just BAD Ya’know” , while passing laws making the fitment of little mercury filled bombs into lightsockets all over the EU compulsory .

I’m honestly astonished that there aren’t queues of these sort of idiots backed up all over the country frantically pushing on doors marked “pull”

Very OT, apologies, but did anyone else see this last night on the 7:30 Report I caught the last few minutes of the interview with Turnbull:

“For example on the issue of gay marriage the Prime Minister and I share the same beliefs that this would be a decision best put to caucus for a conscience vote, now of course we have different personal beliefs where I support gay marriege whilst the Prime Minister opposes gay marriage, but on the issue of a vote we both agree.”

Mr. Abbott should be using the knife and cutting this back stabbing little weasel loose.

CO2 driven Global Warming and a Carbon Trading System are both part of Malcolm’s makeup. As such he is on the wrong side of politics as Global Warming is a political issue, not a real science one. Perhaps he is not welcome in the Labor/Green camp either because he is even richer than Kevin Rudd but has a real education and like Abbott, a Rhodes scholar. Hawke was also a Rhodes scholar, so that should not matter. Rich and educated without a Union background though will not work. Rudd was elected and soon removed by the Unions who legally own and utterly control and fund the Labor party according to their own Constitution.

What is most worrying about Malcolm is that he made his hundreds of millions as a member of Goldman Sachs. Not only did they Goldman Sachs share the blame for the infamous fake Mortgage Derivatives which shattered the world economy in the GFC with trillions in losses, they are first in line to do the fake Carbon Trading. He is clearly totally compromised in pushing for Carbon Taxes, disguised as Carbon Indulgences to be traded and controlled exclusively by merchant banks including Goldman Sachs.

Despite the fact that the warming stopped 18 years ago, despite all the evidence that Carbon Trading is a scam, the question has now to be asked, is Malcolm still a true believer or seeking the PMs job just to look after the interests of his merchant banker friends? Throughout Australian history rich men with vested interests have bought their way into Parliament and prospered. Is that it? We have now heard about Gay Marriage, but what is Malcolm’s current position on the ETS issue which saw him ejected as leader of the Liberal party? He needs to make it clear.

I’ve often wondered whether Turnbull has some vested interests in the carbon market; not directly, but through indirect means which do not require parliamentary registering? His stance just doesn’t make any sense given all the other factors.

Yes, he has hung his whole political career on this single issue. A Julia Gillard type would have lied to get the job and then brought in a Carbon Tax anyway, whatever it takes. The question is whether he still believes so passionately in evil carbon dioxide ‘emissions’ or whether time and warming failure has mellowed his stance? Or is Malcolm just trying to distance himself from his rivals politically?

At the same time a desperate BOM is down to claiming Marble Bar is now representative of the whole continent. over a year which steadfastly refuses to be typical and predictable or even warm. You have to love the logic that if something is not exactly average, it is Climate Change or an Extreme Event. Desperate times.

Yes, which is why I noted that panic is beginning to set in. This summer was supposed to be another horrific one of heat waves and major bushfires, yet it passed with barely a whimper (especially in Victoria). I suspect that this winter is going to be a very, very, cold one.

Julia was brought in as a “disposable PM” – who could do the the required dirty work required, then while “disgraced” could disappear into a cushy Socialist job afterward, knowing it was a job well done……

People would totally freak out if they truly understood how the real politik works.

“There will be no carbon tax in a Government I lead”. We are hearing nothing from Malcolm. Gay Marriage is not in his portfolio responsibility either, but he had to bring it up. What about the elephant in the cupboard Malcolm?

And Phil Jones admitted on the BBC that if SH proxies showed a warmer Med WP (like NH proxies) it could be problematic for the AGW story.
Now we have a clear ice core proxy from Antarctica and many more SH proxy studies showing a clear MED WP. See co2 Science for example.

Yes, journalists are not reporters. Journalists are political activists who will shape the world by selecting the news, even creating it. Then you get the endless click candy, lists of the world’s ugliest dogs or most comfortable chairs or hotels with the largest drinks cabinets. No front page is currently complete with a horror story of warming though. The news that Marble Bar is particular warm is current. I thought most Australians knew that already.

Caroline also worked for Fairfax for years (won’t waste a url on that, but she has it on her homepage & u can find her age/smh stories online).

jo should send this thread to Bill Shorten – he’s thinking about Labor joining the Truth-O-Meter gang, but admits it won’t be easy. help him out with some CAGW truths and, who knows, he & Labor may come clean with the public before the Coalition does:

There are bound to be quite a few ex-Fairfax employees. Those the Guardian and ABC can’t absorb will be seeking jobs in the Murdoch empire. News.com.au is already full of climate bedwetters reporting on how the sky is falling – along with the Abbott-hate, Taylor Swift gossip and the you-won’t-believe click bait.

Temperatures have always fluctuated, in some areas more than others. In the Arctic there are phenomenal temperature fluctuations. I have been recently looking at Spitzbergen at 78N. The GHCN raw data for Isfjord Radio shows about 9 degrees of warming between 1917 and 1938. Nearby Svarlbard Airport shows just 7 degrees of warming between 1976 and 2006. Go to the GISS Homogenised data and rates have been massively reduced, but the later warming appears greater than the earlier.
I think that weather stations are amazing things. The Isfjord Radio weather station was destroyed by the British and Norwegions in 1941 to stop it falling into enemy hands. No temperature data was collected by humans on Spitzbergen until 1946. Yet amazingly we have no gaps in the raw data for Isfjord Radio at all during the war.

I am getting really tired of ‘stories’ being passed of for journalism in main the stream press. I’ve looked up the author, found her webpage and am fairly certain that she hasn’t got a clue what she’s writing about. It looks like she is out of full time work and is trying to get a snout back into the gravy train using the ‘facts’ available from others.

You can read her details and even email her to let her know what you think of her abilities and fact checking. It is time that the Caroline’s of the world stopped writing dribble and started being journalists, maybe that is the underlying reason that she is not full time employed. No surprises there.

I have a confession to make,i am beginning to doubt some of our leading sceptics,hero’s of mine. i first came across the sceptical blogosphere through the wonderful ICECAP site ,pre Copenhagen which lead me to wattsupwiththat at a time when Anthonys catch phrase was to ask of climate scientists ‘where’s the beef’ Anthony seemed to make a decision quite early on that dangerous manmade warming because of co2 emissions was unproven but AGW was !. They made it clear at the time that this was largely a tactical and political decision because they wanted to demonstrate to the warmist scientists that their view is reasonable,that they are not deniers,flat earthers or slayers! many other top sceptics followed his lead.But this week on Jo’s blog we’ve all been reading that BOM and the other temperature data sets are most likely not fit for purpose and in this article proxy data says that the temperature has risen naturally for up to 300 years!! At the same time we get anecdotal evidence from 0ld newspaper clippings in victorian times of droughts and extreme heat So where is the evidence for AGW ??? As anthony watts would ask ‘where’s the beef’

So I say to the sceptics here, throw away the notion that human induced CO2 is causing a little warming, its not.
Then you might want to consider joining the Denialati (sometimes referred to as sun worshipers) because the next stage of the debate is set to begin and wafflers should wake up to themselves.

To resolve a similar confusion in my own mind, I’ve elected to use the Little Ice Age as my reference period for (geologically and historically) recent times.
a) Something happened to cause the LIA;
b) something different happened to end it; and
c) whatever caused b) continued to act for some time.
So there was cooling. And then there was warming. The latter appears to have continued to our benefit, at least until very recently, perhaps until 18 years ago.
All the above happened without cause by CO2, and all those natural causes have been ignored, deliberately, by IPCC.
Our problem now is that the IPCC has effective control of the propaganda machine, and has prevented any public challenge to its “science”.
My own confusion was the result of my looking for how much warming was caused by increasing concentrations of CO2, not if it was causing any. And I missed the message in Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth” back in 2009. Sorry Ian,
Cheers,
Dave B

The reason why Luke Warm Sceptics (LWS) like AW want to appear reasonable to Warmists is because they have not yet discarded the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory.

The GHGET is the most divisive issue amongst global warming sceptics. It has it roots in Quantum Mechanics. No one actually understands Quantum Mechanics, including its founders: Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg.

Quantum Mechanics is accepted as an Icon of Physics. Therefore, those who do not want to appear foolish accept QM and also the GHGET!

However the GHGET has not been established by any empirical test. It does not even make testable predictions. The only thing that might be said is that GHGET predicts that “the world should be warmer if there is more greenhouse gas” ie CO2. The available evidence to date indicates (demonstrates clearly) that the H20 is actually a cooling substance (in all its forms). Since H2o is by far the major green house gas, it is expected that increased Co2 might also cause cooling.

New information comes to light almost every week and so far the weight of evidence is against the CHGET, and AGW.

Proof as to what has happened in the Earth’s atmosphere is sitting in the records of the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases which appear to be completely ignored by climate scientists and journalists alike.

There are 368 locations on the web site for the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases which each contain files of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Taken together with 36 years of satellite temperature measurements these give us a clear insight into what has actually been happening in the Earth’s atmosphere. That insight tells us the reason why climate model simulations do not produce results that are of any use in reality – they are formulated on false premises.

Linear regression analysis applied to the historic data has revealed that both the monthly and annual changes in each of the CO2 concentration and the satellite lower tropospheric temperature generate insignificant correlation coefficients with a high probability that the coefficients are zero.

An example is the data from the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. The correlation between the monthly CO2 change and the monthly temperature change was 0.02 with 64% probability that the value could be zero. The correlation between the annual CO2 change and the annual temperature change was 0.11 with 2% probability that the value could be zero. The Tropics Land satellite lower tropospheric temperature data from University of Alabama, Huntsville, was used for these calculations.

Another example is from Cape Grim, NW Tasmania, where the monthly correlation between the variables was -0.01 with 80% probability of being zero and the annual correlation was -0.05 with 32% probability of being zero from comparison with the UAH Global satellite lower tropospheric temperature.

Hence there is no causal relationship between changes in both CO2 concentration and satellite lower tropospheric temperature. CO2 does not cause global warming.

However regression analysis has revealed that there is a high correlation between the annual average temperature and the annual increment in CO2. At Mauna Loa this correlation coefficient was 0.69 with negligible probability that the correlation is zero. Other examples of the correlation between the annual average temperature and the annual increment in CO2 are:
Alert, N. Canada, ground station, 0.16 ,
Barrow, Alaska, ground station, 0.54 ,
Izanz (Tenerife, Spain) 0.54,
Cape Kumukahi, 0.67,
NOAA/ESRA Pacific Ocean (00N) 0.62,
Ascension Island 0.54,
Cape Grim, 0.64,
Macquarie Island, Southern Ocean, 0.73,
South Pole, 0.22,
all with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero.

Clearly the temperature level drives the rate of change in CO2 concentration for reasons which may have been discovered long ago if the IPCC had not restricted itself to studying only “human-induced climate change”.

This explains why CO2 concentration lags temperature on a geological time scale as the rate of increase in CO2 does not fall to zero until the temperature has reached a critical low point, that is, the CO2 concentration continues to rise while the temperature is falling but at an ever-decreasing rate.

It also explains why the CO2 concentration has been continually increasing for the past 58 years of recording at the Mauna Loa Observatory but the rate of increase in CO2 concentration has now reached a plateau. In the first 5 years of recording at Mauna Loa, the CO2 concentration was rising at a rate of 0.7 ppm per annum. This rate has continually increased to reach a plateau of almost 2.1 ppm per annum for the most recent 15 years. The IPCC now have to explain a plateau in each of the two variables, namely temperature and rate of increase in CO2 concentration.

To conclude, the natural rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age has most likely caused the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since then, regardless of mankind.

Yes Dave B, the 2% arises because of the variables not being independent, random normal-distribution variables so it is not a true measure of the probability which is derived from the statistical t-distribution, part of the output of the linear regression calculation.
Right from the very beginning, the IPCC pointed to the visual graphics of rising temperature alongside rising CO2 to claim that CO2 was causing the temperature rise, completely ignoring the fact that the time series were not stationary in a statistical sense. Furthermore, no climate scientist had the audacity to point this out. Instead they focussed attention on the infrared emission-absorption properties of CO2, which we know only forms one molecule in every 2500 molecules in the atmosphere, thereby drawing attention away from the total picture. However that did not deter them from claiming that the effect was “global”.

I write as a world expert on the thermodynamics of planetary tropospheres. A bold claim? Not when you consider that, after years of research into the climate issue, and the application of correct physics, I appear to be one of only two such climate researchers in the world to have realized where the required energy comes from to support planetary surface temperatures. For example, the surface of Venus receives only about 10% as much solar radiation as Earth, yet that surface is maintained with a supply of thermal energy at temperatures around 460°C. In fact, the temperature of a fixed location on the equator rises by about 5 degrees during four months of sunlight. This is not due to any radiation absorbed by that surface.

Carbon dioxide and water vapor cool Earth’s surface and empirical evidence in my published study proves such for water vapor, thus demolishing the greenhouse conjecture. The IPCC in effect claims water vapor warms by about 15 degrees for each 1% in the atmosphere, This would mean rain forests (with 4% WV) should be 45 degrees hotter than dry deserts with 1% WV.

I have spoken to a meeting of the “Climate Realists of Five Dock” in Sydney last week wherein they realized that the physics I present is correct, and all radiative forcing paradigms are not.

So please read http://climate-change-theory.com (as about 800 per week are doing) and my papers linked therein. I am happy to answer any questions and be involved in any discussion with any key scientists, especially those with an understanding of thermodynamics.

Doug, I do believe like you that the sun heats the planets interior. My take is a tad different, the standard models of physics, the universe etc have all failed. They took beliefs in their correctness and over almost a century have explained nothing without inventing imaginary particles and imaginary processes. The latest in the study of the heavens they found that most of the matter in the universe was missing and their wonderful model could not work.

What did they do, rethink the model no, they invented dark matter, that was not enough so they invented dark energy. That fixed the model but no one can locate stuff because it is dark and disprove the model.

However there is a better explanation and it starts by correcting basic particle physics and how matter works. Charge photons are their dark energy the entire universe is swimming in them like an Aether of old, this charge pours into the sun at the poles and comes out mainly around the bands that sunspots appear. It connects like streamers and pours into all the planets poles and exits mainly around 30 degrees north and south of the equator and reconnects back to the sun. This is your internal planet heat. The gas giants effect the suns moods by their positions in the sky relative to one another and the sun. This effects the charge recycling and thus the strength of the solar cycles, predictable they are.

This totally explains the time periods of climate in the geological record that repeat. It also fixes everything that is wrong in the standard models of everything, charge recycling powers every single atom like perpetual motion. Why is a sun spot dark? you are looking through the plasma atmosphere which gets hotter away from the sun and the spot is cool. If we were looking at a nuclear furnace underneath it should be bright.

denier, denial throughout. how insulting can this young writer get?
check the photo used to illustrate this “story”. no prize for guessing right:

4 Mar: Guardian: Energy company could end funding for climate change denier
Scientist Dr Wei-Hock Soon, who accepted $1.25m in funding from Exxon Mobil and others, defends his record and attacks ‘politically motivated groups’
by Jessica Glenza in New York
Funders appear to be backing away from a prominent climate change denier who may have failed to disclose that his peer-reviewed articles were funded with grants from petroleum companies…
The Heartland Institute has framed the debate as a partisan issue, blaming the American left for attempting to discredit a scientist who questions accepted science…
This logic will probably ring hollow for scientists who, for years, have worked to build evidence of climate change while denial groups and conservative politicians attempted to discredit them…
Soon’s statement on Monday came as clean energy advocates questioned whether one company, electric utility Southern Company, had any business funding research when it could have used the cash to reduce ratepayers’ bills…
Southern Company said on Tuesday that it “funds a broad range of research on a matter of topics that have potentially significant public policy implications for our business”.
“While the scientific and political discussions on climate change continue, Southern Company is focused on researching, developing and deploying innovative energy technologies to deliver clean, safe, reliable and affordable electricity to customers.”
*** This story was amended on 3 March to correctly reflect Southern Company’s position on funding energy researchhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/03/wei-hock-soon-climate-change-denier-grants-exxon-mobil

***Guardian/Jessica: why not link to the following 24-page report…and assess how much CAGW is costing Southern Company and its customers?

Water vapor emanating from cooling tower.
Original color of water vapor – white.
Color after photo-shop or similar digital treatment – dark grey/black.
Proof/Evidence – see color of towers. All detail gone after touch-up job to pic.

Note: The color of the water vapor looks fake if you just look at it for a couple of seconds.

3 Mar: SMH: Peter Hannam: Australia posts second hottest February as warm run continues
Australia’s run of abnormally warm weather has continued with the country recording its second-hottest February in data going back to 1910, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.
Last month’s national maximum temperatures were 2.35 degrees above the 1961-90 average, just shy of the record 2.41 degree anomaly set in 1983. All states and the North Territory were at one degree above average.
For Sydney, the city marked another month of mildly warm conditions, with just two days failing to reach at least 25 degrees – the fewest in February in records dating back to 1859 – and well short of the 11 such days on average.
By contrast, Sydney had just one day above 30 degrees last month, half the normal number…
For the season as a whole, Australia recorded its fourth-warmest summer on record, with maximum temperatures 0.94 degrees above the 1961-90 average, the bureau said. By mean temperatures, it was the fifth-warmest, with an anomaly of 0.86 degrees.
Summer ended on a relatively dry note, with rainfall 51 per cent below average for February…
Nationally, Australia recorded its first same-day landing of two severe tropical cyclones, with Cyclone Lam and Cyclone Marcia crossing the coast within eight hours of each other.
If confirmed as a category 5 cyclone, Marcia will be the most southerly storm of such size on record for the east coast and possibly the west coast too.
Western Australia endured one of its hottest summers on record, with Roebourne Airport notching the equal-latest 49 degree reading…http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/australia-posts-second-hottest-february-as-warm-run-continues-20150302-13slj0.html

multiply these complaints by many, many thousands along the Queensland Coast.

3 Mar: Caboolture News: High risk zones were dry when hit by recent storms
STEVE Keeping’s Beachmere property was declared a ‘high risk’ zone in the Moreton Bay Regional Council draft town plan but didn’t flood even in the weather event cause by ex-Tropical Cyclone Marcia.
Areas all over the Moreton Bay region have been classed at a high risk of being flooded in a weather event which has residents concerned at the change in value to their properties and want the council and state government to review it…
Owner of a vacant property on Beachmere, Margo Kalugin, said she and her husband haven’t been able to build on the property because of it being high risk but it remained dry over the whole weekend the weather hit.
“Apparently at the moment it’s not even saleable,” she said.
“It was going to be our superannuation and now it’s useless.”
The Moreton Bay Communities Alliance chairman Ken Park said it shows the original formula used to put it together was flawed.
A Moreton Bay Regional Council spokesperson said the Bureau of Meteorology had warned ex-Tropical Cyclone Marcia could bring storm surges and the inundation of low-lying coastal areas.
“Council expects to meet with the new State Government to discuss the region’s draft planning scheme in coming weeks.”…
“It is up to the council to decide whether they alter the plan in response to one weather event.”http://www.caboolturenews.com.au/news/High-risk-zones-were-dry-when-hit-by-recent-s/2561865/

except for those personally affected, or those who would like to buy, but can’t afford both mortgage & home insurance, i don’t think people realise how exorbitant some premiums are:

Insurers urged to be more flexible
The Australian – ‎Feb 27, 2015‎
INSURANCE companies are being urged to offer more flexible insurance products for north Queensland residents or face competition from offshore as a string of cyclones in recent years has pushed up premium rates at more than six times the rate of …

Nov 2013: Brisbane Times: Amy Remeikis: One size fits all insurance premiums hurting Queenslanders: government
Insurers need to stop looking at “postcode-wide baskets” where a one size insurance premium fits all, says the state government…
“We feel that they [insurance companies] have got away with too much over the last two to three years,” Mr King said.
“If things were put in place after the terrible natural disasters, particularly cyclone Yasi, then people wouldn’t have experienced these 600, 700 and 800 per cent premium rises.
“We need more data out there so that insurers can accurately calculate their premiums.
“At the moment they are looking postcode-wide where anyone in certain postcodes are judged in a one size fits all basket…
Mr King said it was crucial the issue was addressed, because it was the “number one issue” constricting development in north Queensland.
“I’ve had home owners in Cairns in my office on the verge of tears because they can no longer afford insurance for their homes,” he said.
“People have experienced skyrocketing premiums of 400, 500 and 600 per cent over the last two to three years.
“It’s really got to a crisis point and this issue is holding up the development of the top half if this great state.”…http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/one-size-fits-all-insurance-premiums-hurting-queenslanders-government-20131127-2yamk.html

4 March: Insurance&Risk: Riley Morgan: Marcia damage heads north
More than 14,000 Cyclone Marcia claims are expected to be lodged by the end of the week, as property owners and loss assessors access to storm-bruised areas but the damage is proving far less than first feared…
Insurance losses have more than doubled than what was first estimated by the Insurance Council of Australia, with the current estimate sitting at $88 million, which ICA Spokesman Campbell Fuller will climb further…
“However, this is expected to be well short of the damage experienced under Cyclone Yasi and Cyclone Oswald in insurance losses in Queensland and Northern NSW.”…
Houses built before 1980 have borne the worst damage, with Peter Peirano, Principal Broker of Piranha Insurance Brokers in Rockhampton, praising later building standards for saving many homes.
“This is better than Cyclone Tracy because of the building standards,” he says.
“Really, the majority of the sub-standard buildings have failed, and they will continue to fail. But the buildings built from 1985 onwards and the nice low-set brick houses only suffered damage from large trees falling through them.”…http://www.insuranceandrisk.com.au/b2a3ff09/Marcia_damage_heads_north?zone1=3&zone2=4

4 Mar: Brisbane Times: Jorge Branco: Cyclone Marcia: Building regulator to investigate dodgy roof installations
After the storm, Queensland Building and Construction Commission inspectors found “a number of homes” in Yeppoon and Rockhampton where roof replacements didn’t meet cyclone standards.
But QBCC commissioner Steve Griffin stressed the majority of damage to newer homes was caused by falling trees and debris from other buildings..
His comments came in response to concerns raised by Queensland’s leading cyclone research centre about damage to new homes in the wild weather.
“We have now inspected 80 per cent of homes in Yeppoon, Rockhampton and surrounding areas and found that the majority impacted by the cyclone were built between 1930 and 1970, prior to cyclone standards being developed and adopted as standard practice,” Mr Griffin said.
But he said QBCC and Livingstone Shire Council inspections found several cases where roof replacements done to older homes did not comply with cyclone standards…
A QBCC spokesman said the regulator would consider taking further action against contractors if necessary…
***On Monday Cyclone Testing Station director Dr David Henderson said he was surprised to see damage to newer homes following the cyclone because wind speeds in Rockhampton and Yeppoon were well below the 250km/h winds buildings in the region were built to withstand.
“There wasn’t a great deal but the fact that we saw some means there’s issues that we need to investigate to try to see where these possible failings are coming from,” he said.
“The fact that it was on modern construction, some recently built, definitely needs to be investigated.”…
As of Wednesday morning 17,400 insurance claims had been filed for $130.5 million worth of damage, a huge jump from the $88 million in claims filed as of Tuesday…http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cyclone-marcia-building-regulator-to-investigate-dodgy-roof-installations-20150304-13uqcs.html

4 March: Courier-Mail: Liam Walsh: Insurance repairs from November hailstorm in Brisbane still dragging
Last November’s hailstorm triggered 103,205 claims, according to the Insurance Council of Australia, costing an estimated $1.091 billion.
The disaster was so large it has swamped demand for glaziers and car repairs.
Suncorp, which has notched up more than 28,900 claims, said that 30 per cent of claims had been paid out or repaired, and 90 per cent should be finished by July…
Suncorp expects 10,000 claims from Marcia, at a cost of up to $150 million. RACQI has received 3343 claims while IAG, which is behind the NRMA and CGU brands, has logged 3500 claims…
2 COMMENTS:
Fay: People are being held to ransom by insurance companies. This is what happens when 2 or 3 companies become monopolies, they have a select few repairers and wont use anyone else.
What happens to those families who have insurance cover for rental accommodation while their homes are being repaired but that only covers them for a $ value only not until the home is repaired. Will they be thrown out on the street because they cant afford to pay rental as well as mortgages when that cover runs out. Years ago when disasters happened in a State where the repairers where unable to cope cars where shipped to where they could be repaired or companies sent more workmen to the area to help out…etc
brad: And when the next big storm hits, what then? I can see the day when Queensland becomes an insurance no go zone with cover either not available or super expensive. Coal powered climate change is going to hit the sunshine state hard and yet it is still business as usual. Nuts I tells ya!http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/insurance-repairs-from-november-hailstorm-in-brisbane-still-dragging/story-fnihsrf2-1227247021196

Yes! And it’s overflowing right into the northern hemisphere and settling in the Northeast United States, where there’s weather so hot they’ve had to import snow from far away to keep it cool enough to avoid killing people.

A good proxy for temps in Australia over the last 300 years is in Canberra. Snow gums grew in Canberra in the past. There are still a few left on the south side of Black Mountain. One about 15 km north was felled a few years ago despite a planning rule that it be preserved.

Snow gums now only grow above 1200 metres. Canberra is at 600 metres. Temperature drops by 0.65 celsius per 100m in altitude. That means that a 600m difference is 4 degrees (6 x 0.65 = 4). So Canberra to have had snow gums means the temperature was at least 4 celsius colder than now, and had regular snow which is required for snow gums to reproduce.

Canberra’s snow gums are still healthy and the largest I have ever seen. They clearly survive in a warmer climate, but cannot reproduce. The one 15 km north was in a more exposed area and while healthy for its age it was on the down hill path. As a long lived tree that perhaps meant another 50 years.

G. M. Brown (Ref. No. 5) brings out points relevant to my ratios principle which, in the following quotes from his extremely interesting paper (with elaborations thereon,) I hope to sharpen the focus on the relationships between the Sun and the planets on the one hand and Earth-bound factors on the other.

It might narrow the field of speculation on the cause(s) of variations in solar activity on the one hand and Earth’s magnetic field intensity on the other, as well as expressing my growing sense of the significance of the ‘beat’ between the various chains of cycles, as they coincide in time, as the all-important markers of events, which are matters of our greatest concern, such as droughts in the short term and cooler/warmer periods in our climate/weather in the longer term.

The following quotes from the relevant sections of this paper are not incompatible with my climate/weather cycles, as I point out in my comments which follow.

1: “…..Wood has re-opened consideration of the possibility that solar activity may be controlled by the tidal influence of the planets.”

For an insight into the compatibility of the above quotation with my ratio principle, see page 10.

2: “…..(a) If this relationship proves valid, it implies that the Sun ‘breathes’ with an 11 year period, such that the size of a solar activity maximum is determined at the very beginning of a cycle, perhaps the very end of the preceding cycle, from the ‘depth’ of the solar minimum.

“This quantity is essentially unmeasurable by the conventional sunspot number and may be insensitive of detection by other indices of solar activity, which decrease at this time.

“…..(b) For example, there is a marked tendency for some maxima in AQD (Abnormally Quiet Days in the hub of the Earth’s magnetic field intensity) count to be double-humped, with peak separations of about two years.

“Double maxima are a feature of the solar cycle (although not always evident in sunspot numbers) and have been interpreted as the result of the superposition of two processes having different physical properties.

“…..(c) There are obvious difficulties in accounting for a time constant as long as 5-6 years from the solar side, but it is now evident that the solar cycle is a much more complicated periodicity than that indicated by the variation of any one index of activity.

Differ in Phase

“The cycles in solar wind intensity and velocity, coronal green line intensity and coronal shape, and sunspot number, all differ in phase from one another, with a maximum difference of at least three years.

“….. (d) The interplanetary field near the Earth is largely controlled by the solar polar field and in keeping with the above result, the phase of the annual variation of the interplanetary field changes about 2.7 years after sunspot maximum.

“….. (e) From the terrestrial magnetic side it is difficult to speculate on possible mechanisms while the essential cause of the AQD phenomenon remains obscure.

“….. (f) It seems that there is a long term secular trend in AQD occurrence, evidenced by the almost continual increase in the size of the minimum count of each cycle over the period covered.”

Comment:

The fact that Brown has found an 11 year period in the solar magnetic phenomena, with an intensity curve which is anti-cyclic to that of the sunspot number, seems to argue that whatever force is responsible for the sunspots, might also be responsible for the solar magnetic phenomena.

In my letter to Dr Nelson (page 9) I called attention to the significance of the latitude of the Sun which is rotating at the 27d rate. This just happens to be the zone of the Sun in which the enigmatic sunspots are to be found.

That the AQD minima is a half-cycle ahead of the sunspot cycle, seems to indicate that the latter phenomenon is a delayed (surface) manifestation of something which is happening deeper within the Sun and which takes five years to migrate to the surface, where it appears as the well known, but little understood sunspots.

Unknown Entity

(a) It appears to me that the unknown entity, which ends up as a visible sunspot, is carried from its place of origin by a convection cell. Granting this and that, there would also be the possibility of a cell being retarded, unduly, in its journey out to the surface of the Sun, by competition with other convection cells, or other factors. The erratic nature of the controversial ’11 year’ sunspot ‘cycle’ could thus be explained.
(b) The inference drawn from this quotation is that there are, indeed, two (or more) processes going on in the Sun, which conjointly, appear to be responsible for solar magnetic phenomena and sunspots as well.

There is also a strong indication that the “double-humps” that he talks about in both the AQD and the sunspot cycles, are likely to turn out to represent harmonic ‘beats’ between different cycle trains. I have a strong feeling that the further we proceed with this study, the more synonymous the ‘beat’ will become with the climate/weather cycle.